Jasmine Marie Torres v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 208th District Court of Harris County (memorandum opinion per curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed November 17, 2011. In The Fourteenth Court of Appeals ____________ NO. 14-11-00511-CR NO. 14-11-00512-CR ____________ JASMINE MARIE TORRES, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 208th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. 1229619 & 1301028 MEMORANDUM OPINION In cause number 1229619, appellant entered a plea of guilty, without an agreed recommendation on punishment, to aggravated robbery with the use of a deadly weapon. On August 26, 2010, the trial court deferred a finding of guilt and placed appellant on community supervision for six years. The State subsequently moved to adjudicate appellant s guilt, alleging that appellant had committed another aggravated robbery offense with the use of a deadly weapon. Appellant entered a plea of true to the State s motion to adjudicate. In cause number 1301028, appellant entered a plea of guilty, without an agreed recommendation on punishment, to the second aggravated robbery offense. On June 6, 2011, the trial court sentenced appellant to confinement for twenty years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in each case, with the sentences to be served concurrently. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal in each case. Appellant s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the records and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). A copy of counsel s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate records and file a pro se response. See Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than forty-five days has passed, and no pro se response has been filed. We have carefully reviewed the records and counsel s brief and agree that these appeals are wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the records. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, the judgments of the trial court are affirmed. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally. Do Not Publish Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b). 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
